MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321088648 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v13n6p8

Use of the Impella device in ambulatory heart failure and pre-heart transplant patients - one medical center’s experience

2023· article· en· W4321088648 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frederick R. Macapagal, Mastian Chand, Luma Succar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpellaMedicineHeart failureAmbulatoryPopulationIntensive care medicineCardiologyVentricular assist deviceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: The prevalence of heart failure (HF) in the US has increased over several years. The American Heart Association (AHA) documents that HF has a prevalence of 6 million cases among Americans aged 20 years and older. HF is a complex syndrome that results from the structural or functional impairment of ventricular filling or ejection of blood, leading to symptoms including poor exercise tolerance, shortness of breath, and signs of HF such as edema and rales. The aim of the study was to add to the knowledge base from one medical center's experience using Impella device in ambulatory heart failure and pre-heart transplant patients.Results: The axillary Impella enables HF patients to ambulate inside the CICU while waiting for destination therapy. RNs in our medical center's CICU can take care of these patients effectively and competently because of extensive prior experiences with the AxIABP. Nursing staff have adapted existing nursing procedures, protocols, and lessons learned from experiences with the AxIABP to manage this new patient population.Discussion: Impella is one treatment option in advanced HF and pre-heart transplant patients. The development of an alternative insertion technique that allows patients to ambulate instead of being on bedrest continues to evolve. Our medical center’s experiences with taking care of ambulatory HF and pre-heart transplant Impella patients have shown that this is a safe and effective treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→